Martial Arts as War (MAW) and Martial Arts as Sport (MAS)—these are the two paradigms that, by and large, define the contemporary universe of the martial arts. Or so I have argued in previous essays. Now, it’s true, of course, that—as my own Master-Instructor observed to me in one of our countless conversations over this […]
As I argued a few weeks ago, there are reasons for doubting Donald Trump’s conservative bona fides. But those of his critics at Fox News and in some quarters of “conservative” talk radio who level this charge against him are disingenuous, for neither are their candidates of choice conservative.
But neither is rising GOP star Carly Fiorina a conservative.
There isn’t remotely as much in the way of a political record on which to judge Fiorina as there is available for judging the professional politicians who comprise the bulk of the GOP’s presidential candidates. However, since Trump’s equally thin resume in this regard hasn’t prevented the Charles Krauthammers and George Wills from judging him, we are indeed in a position to determine whether Fiorina is a genuine conservative.
To begin with, Fiorina is no different than your conventional Republican (not conservative, but Republican) in claiming to be “pro-life” while simultaneously championing a woman’s right to kill her child in circumstances of rape, incest, and her own health. This inconsistent, phony baloney position must be seen for the species of double talk that it is.
If abortion is immoral, then presumably it is immoral because it is immoral to intentionally kill innocent human lives—whether they are growing inside or outside of their mothers’ wombs. Thus, morally speaking, the circumstances in which an innocent human being was conceived are utterly irrelevant to its moral standing.
And even if this innocent human being, the woman’s child, inadvertently poses a threat to that woman’s well-being, it is still far from obvious how this can suddenly justify a mother’s decision to kill her child.
If Carly Fiorina (and most other Republicans) are “pro-life” despite permitting abortion in these circumstances, then “pro-choice” Democrats who favor abortion only after the first trimester, say, are also “pro-life” for allowing abortion only under this circumstance.
On the other hand, if Democrats are “pro-choice” because they do allow abortion under some circumstances, then Fiorina (and most Republicans) are “pro-choice” for allowing abortion under some circumstances.
Another curious fact is that Fiorina supports embryonic stem cell research.
The Christian Coalition voter guide is designed to “educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for office stand on key faith and family issues.” In 2010, they asked a slew of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, like Fiorina, whether they supported or opposed “human embryonic stem cell research.” Fiorina received the grade of “2-,” which meant that she “strongly” opposed prohibiting this research.
During a debate with Barbara Boxer five years ago, Fiorina indicated her belief in “global warming.”
“We should always have the courage to examine the science,” Fiorina said when asked whether she believed that “global warming” was real. She followed this up by adding that “all scientists agree” that “the only way to impact global warming is to act globally.”
This is a politically brilliant move—even if it is intellectually dishonest and more than a bit cowardly: Fiorina, while trying to evade staking out a strong position on this issue, manages to tacitly affirm both the reality of “global warming” and the idea that it is supported by a consensus of scientists!
Of course, it is simply false that “all scientists agree” on what to do about “global warming,” just like it is simply false that all scientists agree that there even is this imminent catastrophe that is anthropogenic global warming.
When Fiorina was asked about her stance via “Proposition 23,” a ballot measure that would’ve suspended California’s law on “global warming” until unemployment dropped to 5.5% or lower for four consecutive quarters, she refused to take one. Barbara Boxer (of all people!) was correct when she retorted: “If you can’t take a stand on Prop. 23 I don’t know what you will take a stand on.”
This wasn’t the only time that Boxer and Fiorina agreed—even if their agreement wasn’t explicit. However, Fiorina explicitly agreed with Boxer when it came to the DREAM Act—which Boxer co-sponsored.
Fiorina, in other words, supported allowing illegal immigrant adolescents and adults to remain in the country as long as they entered either college or the military.
When it is considered that Fiorina just recently spoke out against Trump’s immigration plan to repeal “Birthright Citizenship” laws, bogusly claiming (as Ann Coulter notes) that such laws are Constitutional vis-à-vis the 14th Amendment, then Fiorina’s support of the DREAM Act isn’t at all surprising.
One thing that we shouldn’t overlook is that although Fiorina now challenges Hillary Clinton to “name an accomplishment” for which the latter can take credit, back in 2008, Fiorina lavished praise upon Hillary.
Senator Clinton, Fiorina said, was “incredibly intelligent” and “determined.” “I have such great admiration and empathy for Hillary Clinton,” Fiorina remarked. Hillary is “empathetic of all the tens of millions of people that she was trying to represent in her quest to become the first woman president of the United States.”
Fiorina said that, “as a woman,” she took “great pride in the fact that Hillary Clinton ran for president,” and she “watched with a lot of empathy as I saw how she was scrutinized, characterized, talked about as a woman.”
Hillary, in Fiorina’s judgment, got an unfair shake because of her gender.
Fiorina also claimed that Hillary’s “run for the presidency was historic. She was a great candidate.” Hillary “has helped millions of women all over this country.”
For this reason, Fiorina concluded that “women of any political party owe a debt of gratitude to Hillary Clinton [.]”
Trump may not be a conservative. But Carly Fiorina definitely is not.